Why Rush Limbaugh should back ginormous tax increases now

posted at 2:51 pm on December 6, 2012 by Karl

One of Rush Limbaugh’s favored rhetorical devices is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd, perhaps most infamously with his 1992 endorsement of Bill Clinton for president. One of his occasional guest hosts, Mark Steyn, recently mused that House Speaker John Boehner might want to urge Americans to pay for the government they demand — but Steyn did not flesh out the notion, recognizing that Boehner would never do it. El Rushbo has a big megaphone and draws enough establishment media attention to warrant going Full Mondale.

After all, in the current “fiscal cliff” political theatrics, Pres. Obama and the Democrats are demanding the GOP agree to tax rate increases, while dismissing any proposal to reform entitlement spending. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP has little leverage because entitlement spending was not made part of the spending “cuts” that will be triggered in the absence of a deal. Moreover, some in the GOP are probably happy enough with a situation where — with automatic tax increases already in place — they can vote for tax cuts for the 98 percent while Obama wins a round of class warfare.

So why not go Full Mondale? If the Democrats want to increase taxes and leave entitlements unreformed, why not propose that the federal government raise the taxes necessary to fund these purportedly essential programs?

Indeed, Rush could offer several alternative tax increase plans to address our looming entitlement crisis. For example, based on projections from the Social Security Administration and Medicare’s actuaries, we could raise Social Security takes 28 percent (from 12.4% to 15.57%) and roughly triple the the Medicare tax (from 2.9% to 9.2%).

Of course, these are hikes in payroll taxes, which are regressive, and thus might be objectionable to progressives. Rush could propose to pay for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls though our progressive income tax. Funding promised benefits under these programs would require raising the 35 percent income tax bracket to at least 77 percent and the 25 percent tax bracket to at least 55 percent.

Then again, that idea could be blamed on the Heritage Foundation, which just might be too conservative for Democrats to accept. Accordingly, Rush could offer a plan based on a report from Third Way, a Democrat-affiliated group, adding a bipartisan flavor to the proceedings. According to Third Way, we could stabilize our deficit problem by taking just four ginormous steps. Step One is a familiar tune:

In 2013, soak the rich, Obama-style. Raise the top two tax rates, on ordinary income over $250,000 a year for joint filers, to Clinton-era levels (39.6% and 36%). Raise the top capital gains rate by 5 percentage points (to 23.8%). Tax qualified dividends as ordinary income. Reduce the value of exemptions and deductions for wealthy taxpayers. Restore the estate tax to its 2009 level (a top rate of 45% and exclusion of $3.5 million). Impose the Buffett Rule, requiring all earners of over $1 million to pay at least 30% in taxes.

However, if you cross all these items of the Democrats’ current wish list, the national debt will still double by 2035. So we need Step Two:

In 2015, increase the cap for the Social Security payroll tax to from $107,000 to $170,000 (and adjust for wage growth), then increase the payroll taxes for Medicare by about a third (by raising the rate from 2.9% to 3.9%).

However, these first two steps only push the annual deficit to 3% of GDP through 2019, at which point unreformed entitlement spending explodes the debt again. Thus we move to Step Three:

In 2019, increase all tax rates on ordinary income 5 additional percentage points, phased in over 10 years. Increase both tax rates on capital gains 10 percentage points (to 20% and 33.8%), phased in over 5 years.

Sure, we are really biting the middle class at this juncture, but we cannot reform entitlements, remember? Even so, these across-the-board tax hikes only contain the deficit through 2022. Thus, we move to Step Four:

Impose a 10% national value-added tax, phased in over 5 years.

At this point, America’s Euro-style welfare state finally gets Euro-style funding, and the national debt begins to decline slowly. All we need to do is increase taxes on the median-income family by sixty percent.

Rush Limbaugh, by backing this absurd plan and urging the GOP to propose it, can do what the establishment media will not do on its own: force a discussion of the cost of the Democrats’ policy of denial on entitlement spending. Since the election, the right has been reengaging the debate over whether “starving the beast” of tax revenue has been effective in containing the growth of government. Although there is little indication it has, the Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson argues that the failure of the “starve the beast” strategy does not mean that raising taxes will cause the public to sour on big government.

However, one of the few silver linings to Obamacare may be that it was a test case in this debate. Public opinion polling of Obamacare consistently showed that the supposed benefits were popular, but the mandate was not — and that this tipped the balance of opinion against Obamacare as a whole. Indeed, a majority of Americans now say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.

In short: lunch is popular; paying for lunch is much less so. The GOP can oppose tax increases, but deficit spending is tax increases, as surely as Soylent Green is people. These tax increases will arrive in future legislation, and probably also in the form of inflation (which Ronald Reagan called “the cruelest tax“) to devalue our debt. Rush Limbaugh, by proposing an absurdly large slate of tax increases, can demonstrate the absurdity of what we are already doing, and what the Democrats demand we do in perpetuity.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The teacher said, “Let’s begin by reviewing some American History. Who said ‘Give me Liberty , or give me Death’?”

She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Little Akio, a bright foreign exchange student from Japan , who had his hand up: “Patrick Henry, 1775,” he said.

“Very good! — Who said, ‘Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth’?”

Again, no response except from Little Akio: “Abraham Lincoln, 1863.”

“Excellent!” said the teacher continuing, “Let’s try one a bit more difficult — Who said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country’?”

Once again, Akio’s was the only hand in the air and he said: “John F. Kennedy, 1961.

The teacher snapped at the class, “Class, you should be ashamed of yourselves, Little Akio isn’t from this country and he knows more about our history than you do.”

She heard a loud whisper: “F_ _ k the Japs.”

“Who said that? — I want to know right now!? she angrily demanded.

Little Akio put his hand up, “General MacArthur, 1945.”

At that point, a student in the back said, “I’m gonna puke.’ The teacher glares around and asks, ‘All right! — Now who said that?”
Again, Little Akio says, “George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.”

Now furious, another student yells, “Oh yeah? — Suck this!”

Little Akio jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher, “Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!”

Since the election, the right has been reengaging the debate over whether “starving the beast” of tax revenue has been effective in containing the growth of government. Although there is little indication it has,

For example, based on projections from the Social Security Administration and Medicare’s actuaries, we could raise Social Security takes 28 percent (from 12.4% to 15.57%) and roughly triple the the Medicare tax (from 2.9% to 9.2%).

Sounds good. However, we really need to quadruple social insurance taxes to pay for all the goodies. I mean, the government provides nearly everything anyway … what do we need “extra cash” for?

I would get behind a movement to support this. I got involved with the tea party to protect my kids’ future. LEt’s start paying for these entitlements now. No, I don’t think it will happen, but it will result in a sea change in the conversations we are having today if it would ever gather significant momentum.

I say give the people of the country the tax increases they voted for and then rub their noses in the economic damage resulting from it in 2014. Growth produces more revenue and decreases expenditures. It works against both ends of the problem by causing a rise in tax revenue while at the same time reducing the need for government assistance programs. Increasing taxes simply results in less economic growth, possibly even a decline in revenue while increasing the need for expenditures. But the people don’t seem to “believe in” basic economics so they need to be shown. Give it to them. Then throw the Democrats out in 2014 when the people see the result.

Obama has increased spending by $1 Trillion annually. The people reinstalled him. The fiscal cliff will generate $550 Billion in new taxes. That’s a bit more than halfway covering the new spending. I’m not usually for new taxes, but in this case the spending has been approved by the electorate and the spender rewarded with four more years as CEO. Now is the time to educate the people on how much federal government really costs. I’m blue in the face trying to explain it when we just borrow by the $Trillion to cover it up.

Rush has often gotten into discussions on his show with liberals over the minimum wage. His response usually involves suggesting a ridiculously high figure.

“Why not raise it to $20.00 hour?”

Listening to the liberal stuttering on the phone never gets old!

“Well, we can’t because….uhh….ummmm…..aahhh….”

CurtZHP on December 6, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I know lots of liberals who are fine with $20 an hour, but you can always find a point at which it is unreasonable. I generally start at $1,000 an hour. They say that’s ridiculous, and I say if we’re picking numbers, why not pick a number that will make at least one person in the transaction satisfied?

I know lots of liberals who are fine with $20 an hour, but you can always find a point at which it is unreasonable. I generally start at $1,000 an hour. They say that’s ridiculous, and I say if we’re picking numbers, why not pick a number that will make at least one person in the transaction satisfied?

hawksruleva on December 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Ask them if their teenage son running the cash register at the CVS is worth $20 an hour. Then ask them if they think that son would still have a job if CVS had to pay him $20 an hour.

The working poor don’t pay the payroll tax, they get it back via the EITC. In fact, the very poor actually make money. And then, they qualify for social security checks AS IF they’d actually made those payroll payments since they were credited.

I know lots of liberals who are fine with $20 an hour, but you can always find a point at which it is unreasonable. I generally start at $1,000 an hour. They say that’s ridiculous, and I say if we’re picking numbers, why not pick a number that will make at least one person in the transaction satisfied?

In San Francisco we’ll be at $10.55 come January, so $20 isn’t so far-fetched.

This discussion reminds me of the old joke about the guy who asks his date would she sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says yes. Then he asks her if she’ll do it for $50. She’s outraged, and asks him if he takes her for a whore. He says “We’ve already established that; now we’re just arguing about price.”

Don’t forget the fake debt subsidy from the Fed, which is presently keeping interest rates unnaturally low and thereby hiding a good $500 billion/year in debt service. Eventually, the Fed will lose control of the debt market (it will likely occur very quickly, as Credit Crisis 2.0) and the real cost of this accumulated debt (which has not been felt at this point) will make a scary appearance – and it should be scary, as it will be fatal.

I’d rather finish up the national divorce proceedings before that bomb goes off, since it will be nothing but chaos after that … and chaos with third worlders and leftists holding the levers of power. Not a situation any sane person wants to be confronted with.

As funny as taxing the rich to get an extra 80 billion a year to plug that trillion+ a year hole?

gwelf on December 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Don’t forget, they talk about tax revenues in 10-year terms – $800 billion – so that it sounds close to the deficit, which is spoken about in 1 year terms and rounded down – $1 trillion. Even the idiots in the GOP play this game.

I’m really on board with raising taxes on everyone to whatever level we need to pay for all these government “services”.

I’m also ok with an option that allows for much lower tax rates if you agree not to use any government “services”. You will be required to sign a document listing all services that you agree to be banned from using.

It would be fun for Rush to talk about this but before you know it would get out of hand, the Left would say it really happened, and it would be hard to set the record straight with the 50.6 per centers, lo-info voters who voted for BO.

Not really very regressive at the bottom…
Cam Winston on December 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Good point!

Why do we never talk about discretionary spending? I realize “entitlements” are the Elephant in the Room but BO spent nearly a trillion with his “stimulus”/slush fund. I have had many disagreements with J.E. Dyer but she wrote a great piece about this awhile back.
Off to try to find it….

It’s much simpler than that.
The GOP should make the following offer: We’ll let you have whatever taxation you want as long as the annual budget is balanced.

gwelf on December 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I think we should offer them a blank check. Let them set whatever tax rate they want. And then watch the flow of money dry up. The GOP could vote present on it, and issue a statement saying “we think this will lower revenues and hurt Americans, but Obama wants to do it.”

Every month, as the economy sinks, re-play that statement in a 30-second spot.

Ask them if their teenage son running the cash register at the CVS is worth $20 an hour. Then ask them if they think that son would still have a job if CVS had to pay him $20 an hour.

rockmom on December 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Well said. Actually, I often use the people at the drive thru at McDonald’s. And the converse is also true. Wouldn’t shopping be better if malls could hire teenagers to carry packages for you at, say $3 an hour? Or imagine how many lawn mowing services could operate if they could hire people at a lower wage.

Going over the fiscal cliff, and Congress doing precisely nothing else either for the next 10 years, will bring our budget deficits back to sustainable levels (i.e. less than average GDP growth), assuming baseline projections about future economic growth, inflation, and unemployment hold true.

Of course, that will mean drastic tax increases, so that is not the ideal solution here. I’d like to see Simpson Bowles, personally. Seems like our best option at this point.

Since the election, the right has been reengaging the debate over whether “starving the beast” of tax revenue has been effective in containing the growth of government. Although there is little indication it has had little effect.

Actually try starving the beast instead of feeding it oranges (debt) while saying we are trying to starve it by taking away some apples (taxes).

The Republicans should introduce “soak the rich” taxes that would disproportionately affect Democrats and residents of blue states:

* Eliminate the home mortgage deduction on homes worth more than $250,000.

* Eliminate the home mortgage deduction on second (and third etc) homes.

* Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for state and local income taxes.

* Tax attorney’s contingency fees at the rate of 33% (they take 1/3rd of their clients’ money, so they should have to cough up their own third).

* Tax the investment income of university endowments and private foundations.

* Restore the 20% “Hollywood tax” on movie gross revenues but extend it to all forms of entertainment including concert tickets, sports, cable and internet fees, plus downloads and hard copy CDs and DVDs.

but BO spent nearly a trillion with his “stimulus”/slush fund. I have had many disagreements with J.E. Dyer but she wrote a great piece about this awhile back.
Off to try to find it….

Buy Danish on December 6, 2012 at 4:11 PM

F-:
BO spent 790 billion his first year and his second year and his third year and will again this year. Congress pulled a bait and switch by having the senate not pass a budget. They rolled the stimulus funding into the baseline and spent it each year via continuing resolutions.

They’ll never admit it, but 2012 was an epic fail for conservative media.

MichaelGabriel on December 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM

2012 was an epic fail (and a fatal blow) for the GOP, not for conservative media. It was the GOP that set out to attack the Tea Party after the 2010 elections – because the GOP is full of cowardly retards. It was the GOP that let Barky and the Dems continue their unbudgeted spending since 2010 (which the House had the power AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to stop) and then allowed the GOP to be blamed for everything that the GOP didn’t do (such as threaten default, which was all Barky).

They’ll never admit it, but 2012 was an epic fail for conservative media.

MichaelGabriel on December 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM

You are selling a product and service with a presidential candidate.

Primary 2012 was the larger fail for conservative media. They went all in to get Romney selected as the nominee. They took down Pawlenty, Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich. One after another were the victims of perfect being the enemy of the United States of America. Cain should have never been where he was in the polls. Outside of that, the rest of the leaders were worthy of conservative support.

Instead, conservative media hog piled on each of them, one after another to knock them out of the running to allow perfect and boring as well as my views are progressive Willard Mitt Romney to walk away with as the candidate.

I do not know what precipitated this. Was it Romney using his money to buy off the conservatives? Were they all convinced that Romney would move right in the general? Was there some level of the Petraeus style blackmail from Obama pushing them to back Romney? Who knows why, but in the end, conservative media betrayed the American people and foisted a certain loser on us.

Once Romney was chosen, short of him moving right in the general, it was a forgone conclusion he was going to lose. From that point on, the conservative media could not sell Romney and remain relevant post election.

No. The dems are supporting enough lunatic, America-hating policies on their own. There’s no reason for anyone who opposes them to help. The GOP’s job in the House to stop the spending and force a budget – which they can easily do by not allowing anymore budgetless spending through CRs and not raising the debt limit without getting some very serious and important concessions in return (like the full repeal of ObamaScare). If the GOP doesn’t have the guts to do the stuff they SHOULD be doing then there’s certainly no point in asking them to push stuff that they shouldn’t be doing.

Ask them if their teenage son running the cash register at the CVS is worth $20 an hour. Then ask them if they think that son would still have a job if CVS had to pay him $20 an hour.

rockmom on December 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

And then follow that with: “Would you be willing to pay $20 for a Big Mac? Are you willing to pay $15 for a loaf of bread? Are you willing to pay $25 for a gallon of gas?”
Because if the minimum wage goes that high, the cost of the goods we buy will be forced to go high enough to cover it.
Once the economy adjusts for the higher minimum wage, the minimum wage earners (if still employed) will have lost their economic advantage in buying anything.

They’ll never admit it, but 2012 was an epic fail for conservative media.

MichaelGabriel on December 6, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Oh man, that’s a hilarious reality distortion if there ever was one. The real “fail” for conservative media was being stampeded to support Romney in the first place, a “compromise” candidate that no one wanted that was selected by a GOP establishment more afraid of the Tea Party rebellion than the actual Democrats. The only reason they ultimately united behind him was because they feared and hated Obama more than Romney.

It’s not “conservative media’s” job to save the GOP from committing suicide. In fact, I’ve pretty much come around to the view that conservative media ought to be helping the GOP to the dustbin of history so we can start fresh with a new party.

“* Eliminate the home mortgage deduction on homes worth more than $250,000.”

I support the notion behind that but that number doesn’t work in all markets. I challenge anyone to find a single family home in my county available at $250K. The MEDIAN in my entire county (which includes rural areas such as Gilroy) is $548,500. The most inexpensive town in my county, Alviso, which is swamp land against the South end of San Francisco Bay and sits between two garbage dumps and active salt ponds and stinks to high heaven all year round is $350,000.

Also, what happens when you purchase a home for $200,000 and it is suddenly worth $235,000 a few years later? Does your interest suddenly no longer become deductible?

I would support something like:

A 1% federal transfer tax on any home that exceeds the 90 day median home price of the local jurisdiction (incorporated body or county if unincorporated) by more than 50% provided it is the primary residence.

But I agree with eliminating the mortgage deduction for all new mortgages let that aren’t the primary dwelling.

All the left has to do is put a picture of Rush Limbaugh on Telemundo and Univision and say “This is the face of the Republican party.”

Game,set and match. Hispanic conservatives are going to be turned off. Limbaugh plays Feliz Navidad on his program and snarks that he is reaching out to Hispanics. Everyone knows it’s a joke and Hispanics are insulted.

What if the Republican party ran an add on these media outlets that asked this:“Would you rather have the government take your money in taxes to support gay marriage and abortions, or would you rather keep that tax money for your daughters’ Quinceañera?”

Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t know what a Quinceañera was if it bit him in is haughty rump.

Quinceañera (lit. meaning One (f.) who is fifteen), sometimes called fiesta de quince años, fiesta de quinceañera, quince años or simply quince, is the celebration of a girl’s fifteenth birthday in parts of Latin America and elsewhere in communities of people from Latin America.

Sucks your President has never been man enough to take on Rush Limbaugh, doesn’t it?

MNHawk on December 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Perfect example of how Internet media blogs have become echo chambers.
I despise Obama. Anyone who has read my comments, knows I am a conservative. I’ve voted 100% Republican for every single candidate the last 4 years, including dog catcher.

The Republicans should introduce “soak the rich” taxes that would disproportionately affect Democrats and residents of blue states:

* Eliminate the home mortgage deduction on homes worth more than $250,000.

I vote no on this. It all depends on the particular market, which varies widely across the country. $250K is nearly slums in some places. Make it $1 Million if you want.

* Eliminate the home mortgage deduction on second (and third etc) homes.

I’m ok with this one.

* Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for state and local income taxes.

How about a cap on how much of a deduction – that way high tax states get hit, low tax states still get something.

* Tax attorney’s contingency fees at the rate of 33% (they take 1/3rd of their clients’ money, so they should have to cough up their own third).

Sounds good

* Tax the investment income of university endowments and private foundations.

Go for it.

* Restore the 20% “Hollywood tax” on movie gross revenues but extend it to all forms of entertainment including concert tickets, sports, cable and internet fees, plus downloads and hard copy CDs and DVDs.

I’d even go higher – and how about we cap entertainer salaries as well? The libs always want to cap corporate exec salaries. Let’s do it to actors, athletes, musicians, etc as well.

All these can be sold as soaking the rich. Introduce the legislation and watch the Democrats vote down those tax increases on their own rich supporters.

rokemronnie on December 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM

dentarthurdent on December 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I’d focus on tax increases that will specifically hit hypocrits like Warren Buffet – who keeps talking about raising income tax rates when we all know he keeps his direct salary abnormally low specifically to avoid those taxes for himself. Hit him where he feels it.

The fiscal cliff will generate $550 Billion in new taxes. That’s a bit more than halfway covering the new spending.

shuzilla on December 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I keep hearing slightly different things, but one thing I’ve heard frequently is that the amounts quoted in terms of ‘new revenue’ (grumble) taxes received will be over the next TEN YEARS.

First, I’d like to know if that’s true (or is it an annual figure) and then I’d like to make sure everyone is speaking on the same terms and citing annual spending deficits and annual tax revenue increase figures.

The reality, I believe, is that the new taxes will cover only several days of spending. If it were truly $550 billion *annually*, that’d be about half a year’s worth. I believe that is a 10-year figure.

All the left has to do is put a picture of Rush Limbaugh on Telemundo and Univision and say “This is the face of the Republican party.”

Are these the same networks that were asking tough questions about Fast and Furious but whose viewers still voted in droves for the president that arranged for assault weapons to be given to Mexican drug cartels to slaughter hundreds of Mexicans? Hispanics who voted for him can own it.

Game,set and match. Hispanic conservatives are going to be turned off.

Then they weren’t smart enough to be conservative.

Limbaugh plays Feliz Navidad on his program and snarks that he is reaching out to Hispanics. Everyone knows it’s a joke and Hispanics are insulted.

Everyone knows it’s a joke, yet some are insulted? Try again.

What if the Republican party ran an add on these media outlets that asked this:
“Would you rather have the government take your money in taxes to support gay marriage and abortions, or would you rather keep that tax money for your daughters’ Quinceañera?”

Look. Do these people want to be pandered to or not? Make up your mind.

Rush Limbaugh wouldn’t know what a Quinceañera was if it bit him in is haughty rump.

I keep hearing slightly different things, but one thing I’ve heard frequently is that the amounts quoted in terms of ‘new revenue’ (grumble) taxes received will be over the next TEN YEARS.

First, I’d like to know if that’s true (or is it an annual figure) and then I’d like to make sure everyone is speaking on the same terms and citing annual spending deficits and annual tax revenue increase figures.

Midas on December 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yes, it’s true. The tax receipt figures are for 10 years while the deficit figures are regular single year numbers. Even the GOP idiots are playing this game.

The alleged $880 billion in new tax receipts is only $80 billion/year averaged out to combat the trillion+ annual deficits every single year.

Of course, we’ve been getting this disingenuous game played on many fronts for some time, now. Right after Barky slimed into office, the “price of oil” was surreptitiously changed from Brent Crude (which was always “the price of oil”) to West Texas Light Sweet, which cut a quick $20/barrel off the quoted price in the media. ObamaScare, itself, was shoved through with figures over varying time spans being quoted as if they were all standardized and normalized when nothing could have been further from the truth.

The distortion and destruction of the language is part and parcel fo the American Socialist Superstate. Too many in the GOP are happy to play right along with it.

I so wish we could have a Conservative Dictator for a day who would finally put the screws to all the rich liberals whining about needing to pay more taxes.

**Executive Order 666777 **

It is hereby ordered that Warren Buffet shall forfeit all income and assets, payable to the United States Treasury, save for an amount equal to the average yearly income for Omaha, Nebraska, times ten years.

Since we are a socialist country, let’s start paying for all this free stuff. Tax the hail out of everyone. Increase all taxes by at least 75% on everyone. Let’s let the gubmint teat suckers see how long their freebies will last when there is no one left to foot the bills. I say, it’s time to show what socialism is really all about.

I support the notion behind that but that number doesn’t work in all markets. I challenge anyone to find a single family home in my county available at $250K. The MEDIAN in my entire county (which includes rural areas such as Gilroy) is $548,500. The most inexpensive town in my county, Alviso, which is swamp land against the South end of San Francisco Bay and sits between two garbage dumps and active salt ponds and stinks to high heaven all year round is $350,000.

Sucks to live in a Blue state, don’t it? This is all about taxing Big Blue disproportionately and forcing the Dems to say that there are some taxes on the rich that they don’t like because it hurts them. That quarter of a million isn’t set in stone so let’s take the average value of residential properties in NY, CA, CT, MA and IL and disallow any deduction on homes worth more than 90% of that average.

I’m against death taxes – everything in an estate has already been taxed at least once.

So am I in theory, as I am against all of the new taxes I’ve proposed but the idea is to sell it to the general public as soaking the rich while crafting the tax increases to hit rich Democrats disproportionately.

The country voted for a European-style welfare state. Fine. It’s time that it got European-style tax rates to pay for it. Here are some examples of what they pay:

* Denmark has the highest tax rate in the world with a 48.9% tax-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, the US’s ratio is 28.2%. If Sandra Fluke decided to practise in Copenhagen, her marginal tax rate (based on Georgetown Law’s average salaries after graduation) would be about 59.2%, in addition to a 1.5% church tax and a 25% VAT.

* A senior level nurse in a London hospital earns approximately $49,000. She will pay around $10,500 in income taxes, $6,039 in National Insurance taxes, a 20% VAT, council taxes, and other assorted taxes…in an area where it is more expensive to live than in Manhattan or San Francisco.

* In Sweden, ALL income over $76,586.78 is taxed at 25%, but the average marginal tax rate is 57.77% due to the additional municipal, church and funeral taxes. That doesn’t include the 25% VAT. On the bright side, Sweden is a cool place to die. There are NO inheritance or estate taxes. Also, if you live off of dividends/capital gains, you pay a 30% tax rate, but you don’t have to pay municipal, funeral, or church taxes. Warren Buffett’s secretaries would pay a MUCH higher marginal tax rate in “Socialist Sweden” than she does in the allegedly “plutocrat-ruled” United States.

Eliminating the Bush tax rate cuts on the top 2% will raise about $80 billion per year. THAT’S IT.

The “We can have all of this and get the ‘evil rich’ to pay for it” BS that Obama the Medicine Man sold to the country needs to be exposed for the cr@p that it is. Time to belly up to the bar and pay the tab. From now on, pay first, drink later.

It’s time that EVERYONE put some skin in the game… including Peggy Joseph and the Obamaphone woman.

If Americans want a big government, make them pay for it. We’ll see just how big of a government they really want. I suspect that we will find that they want a much smaller government once they are on the hook for the taxes needed to support it. Right now, they believe that they can have a free lunch and stick the “evil rich” with the tab. Unfortunately for the clueless, there aren’t enough “evil rich” people to pay for the lunch to which the moochers believe they are entitled.

For FY2012, the government spent $3.7956 trillion. Eliminating the Bush tax rates on the top 2% is estimated to bring in $80 billion, ceterus paribus. Ending the Bush tax rates on the top 2% will pay for 7.69 days of Federal government spending.

[$3,795.6 / 365 = $10.4 billion; 80 / 10.4 = 7.69 days]

The Bush tax cuts took 3 million low income Americans off of the tax rolls. How did they repay Republicans? By voting for Barack Obama and other Democrats. Make them start paying for that “Obama stash” and make ‘em pay until it hurts.

Obama is referring to “Clinton’s Plan.” He wants to return to “our plan” (Clinton/Democrats) because “it worked;” yet, Obama’s plan is NOT Clinton’s Plan. If he wants to truly return to Clinton’s plan, fine. Let’s return to Clinton’s tax rates for EVERYONE and Clinton’s SPENDING levels.

It seems to me that Obama and his fellow Social Justice, class warriors only want one part of the Clinton Plan equation and the one that will have the least impact on the most critical issue facing the country: our out-of-control spending that has resulted in a staggering national debt and more than $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

In the end, Obama’s Plan isn’t serious. It’s not about governing. It’s not about economics. It’s not about “math.” It’s about spite, envy and hatred cloaked in the name of “fairness.”

And, if there was any question about Obama’s philosophy, it was answered in the Democratic debate that was moderated by Charlie Gibson. Gibson asked Obama if he would raise capital gains rates even though history has shown that revenue actually falls when CGRs are increased. Obama said that he would “for the purposes of fairness.”

The reason for taxes is supposed to be to raise the funds to pay for the necessary functions of government, not to punish people.

I don’t think the government should be in the “fairness” business. Obama does…even if it means LESS money for the government to spend.

And what would be the purpose in the end accept pleasing his listeners with a sarcasm-baked-in-deep proposals? He’s a guy on the radio. He holds no elected office and would never give up his lavish earning selling advertising in order to run for office and ever actually he responsible for DOING anything. The democratic party doesn’t take anything he says seriously at all and only put the spotlight on him when he puts his foot in his mouth. And the republican party won’t dare do what he says because then they think it just shows that he really IS the “titular head of the Republican party”.

So what’s the point other than show and entertainment from sarcasm? How would this matter at all or why would it? Unless you’re a consistent Rush Limbaugh listener who takes him seriously and can’t see that he’s really just a very smart advertising salesman aiming at keeping you tuning back in tomorrow, then people don’t care what he says.

In which case, this whole idea is nothing more than an exercise in toying around with no real purpose behind it at all. Just games.

I’m against death taxes – everything in an estate has already been taxed at least once.

So am I in theory, as I am against all of the new taxes I’ve proposed but the idea is to sell it to the general public as soaking the rich while crafting the tax increases to hit rich Democrats disproportionately.

rokemronnie on December 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I understand what you’re saying – and of course this is all just fun hypothetical musings anyway – but there would have to be a way to make sure it doesn’t hit family businesses – whether that be a farm or garage or small book store (for just a few examples).

Now, if you want to try to say TAX REVENUES went up under Reagan – go for it. Revenues dipped a bit at first under Reagan’s lower tax RATES, then climbed quite a bit. That perfectly supports the conservative argument that higher tax RATES do not result in higher revenues because they hurt the economy, and lower tax RATES in fact increase revenues because the economy (and average income) grows.

Tax RATES went down – significantly under Reagan.
dentarthurdent on December 6, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Wrong. You don’t know much about the things Reagan ACTUALLY did do you? He did indeed sign a big tax reform package in the beginning, and then proceeded to quietly raise rates and revenue something like 14 times after that. Try it out. Look it up. Not a lie.

That’s right. INCOME tax rates went down. But a whole slew of other rates of taxation, fees, and small taxes went up continuously afterwards. Raising the tax burden on the less wealthy while lowering that on the more wealthy.

If you want to just say, “See the INCOME tax rate was lowered at one point!” and call that good, sound, and a full picture of the taxing structure of the United States I suppose that’s fine, but it’s not a true or genuine picture of tax changes under President Reagan. It’s just not. Sorry.